Excerpt:vendor aud purchaser - agreement to pay consideration to third party--maintainability of suit on non-payment. - - and on the facts above stated we are clearly of opinion that it is.1. the 1st plaintiff and his brother sold certain property to the first defendant. the 1st defendant instead of paying the consideration to the vendors agreed to pay the consideration to a creditor of the vendors. this agreement was in 1899. up to 1902, the first defendant had not paid the creditor. the creditor brought a suit in 1902 and got a decree against the plaintiff. the plaintiff now sues to recover the consideration with interest. the question is whether the suit is maintainable; and on the facts above stated we are clearly of opinion that it is. the case is in essential on all fours with the case of dorasinga, tevar v. arunachalam chetti 23 m.k 441. we, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs.

Judgment:

1. The 1st plaintiff and his brother sold certain property to the first defendant. The 1st defendant instead of paying the consideration to the vendors agreed to pay the consideration to a creditor of the vendors. This agreement was in 1899. Up to 1902, the first defendant had not paid the creditor. The creditor brought a suit in 1902 and got a decree against the plaintiff. The plaintiff now sues to recover the consideration with interest. The question is whether the suit is maintainable; and on the facts above stated we are clearly of opinion that it is. The case is in essential on all fours with the case of Dorasinga, Tevar v. Arunachalam Chetti 23 M.k 441. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs.